On 11/28/2015 02:48 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2015-11-27 10:21:36 -0500:
Liaisons,
We're making good progress on adding reno to service projects as
we head to the Mitaka-1 milestone. Thank you!
We also need to add reno to all of the other deliverables with
changes that might affect deployers. That means clients and other
libraries, SDKs, etc. with configuration options or where releases
can change deployment behavior in some way. Now that most teams
have been through this conversion once, it should be easy to replicate
for the other repositories in a similar way.
Libraries have 2 audiences for release notes: developers consuming
the library and deployers pushing out new versions of the libraries.
To separate the notes for the two audiences, and avoid doing manually
something that we have been doing automatically, we can use reno
just for deployer release notes (changes in support for options,
drivers, etc.). That means the library repositories that need reno
should have it configured just like for the service projects, with
the separate jobs and a publishing location different from their
existing developer documentation. The developer docs can continue
to include notes for the developer audience.
I've had a couple of questions about this split for release notes. The
intent is for developer-focused notes to continue to come from commit
messages and in-tree documentation, while using reno for new and
additional deployer-focused communication. Most commits to libraries
won't need reno release notes.
This looks like unnecessary overcomplication. Why not use such a
convenient tool for both kinds of release notes instead of having us
invent and maintain one more place to put release notes, now for
developers? It's already not so easy to explain reno to newcomers, this
idea makes it even harder...
Doug
After we start using reno for libraries, the release announcement
email tool will be updated to use those same notes to build the
message in addition to looking at the git change log. This will be
a big step toward unifying the release process for services and
libraries, and will allow us to make progress on completing the
automation work we have planned for this cycle.
It's not necessary to add reno to the liberty branch for library
projects, since we tend to backport far fewer changes to libraries.
If you maintain a library that does see a lot of backports, by all
means go ahead and add reno, but it's not a requirement. If you do
set up multiple branches, make sure you have one page that uses the
release-notes directive without specifing a branch, as in the
oslo.config example, to build notes for the "current" branch to get
releases from master and to serve as a test for rendering notes
added to stable branches.
Thanks,
Doug
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
